Sunday, November 24, 2013

A recurrent,
painful question characterized by lost
patience and bearing shades of silent desperation is: “How to have CF accepted bythe scientific community?” Recently one of our
best men, wrote a very nice essay about it but got only one answer saying the
situation is hopeless and salvation of the field can come only from outside. I
was this unique respondent and my pessimism is based in part on the idea that
in the still core system of cold fusion, PdD electrolysis cell, it is
practically impossible to obtain decent reproducibility and there are no
chances for real scale up.

Suppose I am erring here stupidly and tomorrow a perfectly reproducible
classic LENR system will be worked out, 99 successful tests from 100 and a
scientific explanation will be found for this great achievement. Unfortunately
it will be extremely difficult to publish a paper in a high rank scientific
journal. A recent discussion with a reputed, highly successful university
professor who is a good friend i.e. absolutely sincere with me- has again shown
that the orthodox science has given its verdict final and irreversible to cold
fusion- no mercy! It is esoteric science and its adequate status is pariah
science. Scientifically not understood, experimentally not reproducible, sooner
or later it has to die.

As many of my readers I disagree with this, however I
disagree on the basis of the ideas developed in this blog; I dare to think that
now the PROBLEM part is complete and finished. I have explained in detail and repeatedly
how due to unfortunate circumstances in self-enhancing and reinforcing
combinations cold fusion could not find a good explanation (theory) and how and
why the experimental part is faulty due to bad reproducibility. Being a
professional technologist my repulsion toward that damned reproducibility
problem is fiercer and deeply ingrained in my thinking than the arguments of
the most skeptic enemy of cold fusion.

From
now on, let’s start thinking on the SOLUTION.

I repeat It is time to completely re-think and
re-write the history of the field and go to a radically and painfully new
strategy, new modes of thinking- to a new Paradigm.

Actually this has already started even if we are
not aware of it, just now it is deep silence, real “saison morte” on our forums
but (I bet!) the coming year will bring a tsunami of new, creative ideas
disseminated in the epidemic mode. You will see triumphant, absolutely
convincing experimental high energy intensity facts

demonstrating that yes, what has started as
Fleischmann and Pons’ cold fusion is now the finest energy source of the
future.

History will judge me and the new Paradigm I am
announcing here and now. Those who know my privileged way during the last 3
years, my revelations and ordeals know how privileged I was by

learning from Piantelli directly, how hard I
have tried to understand

Rossi’s discovery (not his personality) and what
a unique wonderful source of intellectual and technological discoveries was my
friendship with the Defkalion heroes- will think: “it is easy for Peter, he was
favorised by his professional destiny and now he plays the wise guy and dares
to tell us about a New Paradigm- shameless self promotion!”

True, and not true in the same time the appended
document shows actually I was preaching and prophesizing. about a New Paradigm
already 19 years ago! Just I thought it was a paradigm too far and this was
true- the distance was 20 cold fusion years (a unity of length similar to a
light year but much shorter.

It is old stuff, but many of those who have read
it illo tempore are not more with us (as my unforgettable dear friend Hal Fox
who has published it) and I don’t think it is a popular paper.

You will discover that the last words of that
paper are today still the key to the survival and future prosperity of the
field: “Gain powerby accepting reality." Not an easy job if your
brain is poisoned with dominant memes (guess which ones?) Accepting reality as
irreproducibility cannot be tolerated, CF must be metamorphosed in order to
live etc. is an awfully difficult and slow process.

Further I
have stated then that cold fusion is actually not science? Is it today with all
the attributes of a science as a basic all accepted

theory
understanding standards? Just developing science very very far from the initial
ideas. New “truths, theories, totems and taboos” will populate the radically
changed field, soon.

I see,
with some pleasure that even 19 years ago I have supported the active sites
idea with fervor and facts. And I knew even earlier that only technology will
save Cold Fusion- perhaps.

In 1995
my own idea re “To be, or not to be “was too smart for me too. But now I see it
clearly- if it wants to BE, cold fusion must boldly and entirely change its
identity. Just a bit more subtlety,

my dear
readers!

Peter

ADDENDUM
FROM THE GOOD/BAD OLD TIMES

A PARADIGM TOO FAR?

By Peter Gluck

Fusion Facts, January 1995 p19

Is cold fusion a science? Not yet, because by definition:
"A

science is any discipline in which the fool of the present generation
can go beyond the point reached by the genius of

the last generation" (Max Gluckman).

We all, geniuses, bright scientists, common researchers,
fools

and me belong to the first generation dedicated to battles
and

sacrifices, we try to build the House of Cold Fusion in

perpetual stormy weather. The next generation will have the

decisive advantage to use the good paradigm and will take the

profit.

I dare to predict that finally everybody will be happy: the

Skeptics because cold fusion is not exactly genuine D-D fusion,

the believers because cold fusion is the inexhaustible
source

of energy of the future, and, finally, Mankind because it
will

use this energy.

To be a science, cold fusion needs its own paradigm, and
this

isn't ready yet.

A paradigm for Cold Fusion.

A basic difference: Cold Fusion belongs to SolidState which

is: Developing science/Developed technology.

Hot Fusion belongs to Plasma Physics which is: Developed

science/Developing technology.

In both cases, as in politics or economics, `developing' is

merely an euphemism for underdeveloped; many essential

subfields of solid state e.g. high temperature

superconductivity, conductive polymers, porous silicone,

heterogeneous catalysis actually do not have a real,

quantitative, predictive theory but are prospering

technologically. Each of these fields is a technological

miracle grafted on a theoretical quagmire, and who

cares? This is always forgotten and a cold fusion theory is

ever more insistently requested, however both similarity and

synchronicity suggest that such a theory cannot be worked out

yet.

Two recent papers [1, 2] written by seven authors with a
total

IQ of well over 1000 (is this really additive?) scan the
entire

range of cold fusion theories and conclude, one explicitly
[1]

and one implicitly [2]: no theory possible.

For cold fusion a paradigm shift or a new paradigm is

necessary; this is a complex action comprising: transport,

transfer, and transformation of truths, theories, totems and

taboos of established fields for the use of the new one. The

paradigm of hot fusion was the first choice, however, the
two

paradigms are so different, between them there is a conceptual

abyss, and the strategy adopted was, unfortunately, enough to

pass this abyss by small steps. The result is: many strange

hybrids with a very low life expectancy. Troubles with the
replacement paradigm.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

The field is in a very bad situation: the phenomenon is
real, but it is not understood and is not yet manageable, cannot be
upgraded in a technology.
Metaphorically, it is ill.

The main cause is: Cold Fusion was discovered years before
its time when Science and Technology were not prepared to understand and
develop it.

An
aggravating factor: Cold Fusion was discovered perhaps in the
worst place possible. Its “cradle” the electrolytic cell is too sensitive,
too wet, too dirty and too cold(!)
for a reliable functioning, for scale-up and for technological
development. We also have to add to this the extreme complexity of the phenomena.

Due
to these harmful effects at its birth, the field has
developed very slowly, mainly horizontally, incrementally and is still in
a kind of larva/infantile state, being retarded scientifically and
immature technologically. Scientifically there is no consensus even for
the most fundamental concepts and issues as topology, nature and mechanism
of the reactions; technologically no real progress is possible due to
inherent weaknesses of all systems as discussed here too many times.

5.There is a cure to this immaturity
illness; there are solutions to its existential problems. There is a direction
of real progress in the field. The nature of the usable form
of LENR is very different of the classic form (PdD system); therefore in order
to prevail the field must go through very profound and even surprising metamorphoses.
First, enhanced excess heat release has to be achieved by transition from
static LENR to dynamic LENR+ continuously generating active sites. The field
will be developed by multi-disciplinar research centered on the relatively new
science of Nanoplasmonics.At the end of its 25 Years War, the field will claim it has
grown up and will prove it, following a very radical paradigm change, kind of
mentality reversal and focus ontechnology and engineering. However, in
parallel with the coming commercial triumph, eventually science will also
flourish.